God said it, not me...

[Valerian]

It is not your responsibility to decide anything for anyone else.

Then what is the purpose of this forum?

To be polite and let anyone say whatever they want, but if we try to counter their beliefs with our own reasons or facts we are being rude?

 

[allfoak]

Then what is the purpose of this forum?

To be polite and let anyone say whatever they want, but if we try to counter their beliefs with our own reasons or facts we are being rude?

I don't understand the question?
i said nothing of the purpose of the forum or that you were being rude.

 

[Valerian]

None. The Catholic Church leaves the question open.

... so while it doesn't actually say "you need to baptize your baby, because right now, he's so evil he deserves to be tortured forever", it DOES effectively say "your baby is so evil that we aren't sure whether he deserves to be tortured forever."

No, I can't go along with that paraphrase.

But I will grant you this. There probably are some saints and / or bishops (maybe, just maybe a pope) or even a council who said something very similar, but I will not agree to that ever being a formal teaching of the Church in any way. I wish I had the time to research this more thoroughly for my own benefit.

One thing I am pretty much certain of is that "limbo" was never a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, never a doctrine, a statement in the Catechism, or even a councilar teaching. Limbo (as in reference to deceased unbaptized infants) was promoted by many clergy, etc. that is true. The primary reason for that was because baptism was an extremely important grace and sacrament that afforded the soul enormous benefits and protections. So the Church or clergy did use "scare tactics" in order to get so many of the poor folk, peasants and dwellers in remote regions to act accordingly.

But to another way of looking at your statement above, I believe there is some definite truth in what you say about all of humanity being born with a selfish and iniquitous heart. Man is surely prone to serving his own needs and caring much less of others. Surely we can see that in a child. And it is indicated in Scripture as well in many passages such as Psalm 51: "Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me."

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are going to hell because that is what God says happens to people like you.

Should Christians bear no responsibility for the awful things they say in the name of their vengeful God?

If the Bible is true, Christians should be VENERATED for saying true things.

If you are in a fiery building, do you want me to "bear responsibility" for warning you of the fire, as you wrote? Or should you just say, "Thanks."

 

[savagewind]

If the Bible is true, Christians should be VENERATED for saying true things.

If you are in a fiery building, do you want me to "bear responsibility" for warning you of the fire, as you wrote? Or should you just say, "Thanks."

Is @allfoak writing in the fire?

 

[savagewind]

@allfoak.....you better look behind you.

 

[Deeje]

Say what?

Trolling again?
You think that depicting the Bible's description of the final judgment is the same as suggesting that eternal conscious torment in a fiery hell are the same? (This illustration is ancient BTW)

Perhaps you find the depiction disturbing......you should. No one can stop what is coming. Read 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and 2 Peter 2:5-6. You think the end will be a picnic?

The punishment is eternal, but it isn't conscious. Eternal death is the opposite of eternal life. Those are the only choices....by our actions, we put ourselves in line for one or the other.

 

[savagewind]

Trolling again?
You think that depicting the Bible's description of the final judgment is the same as suggesting that eternal conscious torment in a fiery hell are the same? (This illustration is ancient BTW)

Perhaps you find the depiction disturbing......you should. No one can stop what is coming. Read 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and 2 Peter 2:5-6. You think the end will be a picnic?

The punishment is eternal, but it isn't conscious. Eternal death is the opposite of eternal life. Those are the only choices....by our actions, we put ourselves in line for one or the other.

It says, "Jehovah will destroy the bad ones who do not change". Change into what? Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[savagewind]

(This illustration is ancient BTW)

Does that mean it isn't true anymore?

 

[savagewind]

Trolling again?

What means, "again"? Does that mean that sometimes I don't troll?

 

[allfoak]

@allfoak.....you better look behind you.

I'm fireproof.

 

[psychoslice]

The issue isn't the threat of Hell itself (usually... though even that can cause problems); the problem is when the people who have power over you think you're so evil or worthless that you deserve to be tortured forever... and then act on that belief.

Yep total idiots, I understand what you saying and who is doing this, wink wink.

 

[Kapalika]

You are going to hell because that is what God says happens to people like you.

Should Christians bear no responsibility for the awful things they say in the name of their vengeful God?

Only the most petty and vindictive not only believe but wish for such a concept.

This is somewhat simplistic, but I think Christianity can be sometimes be usefully looked at as divided between those Christians who focus on the loving aspects of the Christian God, and those Christians who focus on the "hell and damnation" aspects of the same God.

The former seem to emphasize their God's love and mercy, and to encourage social responsibility towards others, especially the poor and less fortunate. The latter tend to emphasize their God's judgment and punishment, and tend to focus on personal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

The division between the two seems to be as much a matter of individual personality as it is anything else. Are you more motivated by love of God or fear of God? At least, that's my take on it. I'm probably all wrong once again.

Believing in an eternal hell is one of the most evil things someone can believe in. Any Christian, no matter how good of a person is just as culpable as someone who preaches fire and brimstone although the latter is actually guilty of sadism while the former may simply be brainwashed to try and reconcile the double think of their belief system of an "all loving" god. What they lack in sadism they make up for in stockholm syndrome to their concept of god (and in my experience to their local church and social structure as well).

I find fire and brimstone types to be comparable with propagators of genocide in attitude and inclination (since they are essentially advocating and supporting and enjoying what would amount to a genocide happening in the afterlife). I think this is a pretty good standard since according to their Bible it isn't the action that counts but the thought:

"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him." (I John 3:15)

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

Though perhaps I want to have my cake and eat it too by pointing out the thought-crime concept here, I should note that the difference between hating your brother and actually wanting to kill him is different; however the way these types of people speak you have no doubt that they enjoy the idea of people going to hell and at least some of them would gleefully lynch certain types of people (it was common in the past). If they are not capable of murder they at least enjoy believing it will happen in their concept of the afterlife.

I feel pretty bad for those with Stockholm in this case but as unfortunate as their case may be, they legitimize the fire and brimstone types by normalizing the belief and making it seem like there is some kind of reconciliation. There isn't anything good in a belief in hell, it harms mankind and it either enables sadism or warp's the person's concept of love which justifies all kinds of crazy unhealthy relationships and social structures. I know because I've seen it first hand. It plays out often with I Corinthians 14:34 or I Timothy 2:12 on wives, but could also be used and probably was in the past to justify a more extreme thing like the verses of the Bible telling parents to murder their children in Exodus 22:15 or Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

If god can damn a good but unbelieving person for all eternity and still be all loving, couldn't a parent kill their child for being rebellious or hitting them and still love them? This double-think would allow them to justify it and console themselves while the fire and brimstone type might enjoy it on some level. Both views are messed up, but both emerge from the exact same belief.

Edit: I feel very strongly about beliefs in eternal Hell and what it takes to justify that belief, probably stronger than how I feel about most any other belief. If anyone is offended... well I didn't want to give a "trigger warning" least I offend someone by the mere presence of that content warning . Please understand I honestly didn't mean any offense and am not referring to anyone specific public figure or not but just speaking generally. I'm not hating on Christianity or Christians, just on the belief in eternal hell itself which as I've said I find abhorrent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I can't go along with that paraphrase.

Why not? This applies to any mortal sin: if our debate is focused on whether someone's act was so heinously evil that he deserves eternal torture, then we can take it as a given that everyone in the debate concedes that the act is evil... no?

The alternative is insane: "we even can't decide whether this act is good or evil, but we're open to the possibility that it's so evil that it deserves torture forever."

But I will grant you this. There probably are some saints and / or bishops (maybe, just maybe a pope) or even a council who said something very similar, but I will not agree to that ever being a formal teaching of the Church in any way. I wish I had the time to research this more thoroughly for my own benefit.

It's implicit in the way the Catechism describes the necessity of baptism.

One thing I am pretty much certain of is that "limbo" was never a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, never a doctrine, a statement in the Catechism, or even a councilar teaching. Limbo (as in reference to deceased unbaptized infants) was promoted by many clergy, etc. that is true. The primary reason for that was because baptism was an extremely important grace and sacrament that afforded the soul enormous benefits and protections. So the Church or clergy did use "scare tactics" in order to get so many of the poor folk, peasants and dwellers in remote regions to act accordingly.

I never said anything about baptism.

But to another way of looking at your statement above, I believe there is some definite truth in what you say about all of humanity being born with a selfish and iniquitous heart.

I never said anything of the sort. I think you're confusing the Church's position with mine.

Just to be clear: the fact that I can infer ideas from Church doctrine doesn't mean I agree with those doctrines.

Man is surely prone to serving his own needs and caring much less of others. Surely we can see that in a child. And it is indicated in Scripture as well in many passages such as Psalm 51: "Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me."

... which is a messed up idea to push on people, IMO.

But while we're talking about inherited sin, I think it's worth pointing out that the "original sin" is the effects of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If all of us still carry the effects of this - and the Catholic Church says we do - then all of us have knowledge of good and evil "like God". IOW, if we all have original sin, then we're all able to judge as God judges.

 

[rusra02]

You are going to hell because that is what God says happens to people like you.

Should Christians bear no responsibility for the awful things they say in the name of their vengeful God?

The fact that there are thousands of "Christian" sects, each teaching differently from the others, should convince an honest observer that they cannot all be teaching what Jesus Christ taught. I am convinced Jesus never taught the God dishonoring doctrine of eternal torment in a fiery hell, for example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am convinced Jesus never taught the God dishonoring doctrine of eternal torment in a fiery hell, for example.

What convinces you?

 

[McBell]

First I believe words are meaningless. I only hold people responsible for actions but If you are going to hold Christians responsible for what there god says. You have to use the same standards with all religions. If you do that, I'd be fine with it.

Yet if we hold people accountable for what they say, regardless of who they claim also said it....

 

[InChrist]

You are going to hell because that is what God says happens to people like you.

Should Christians bear no responsibility for the awful things they say in the name of their vengeful God?

I think pretty much any Christians who understands the message of the Bible should not be pointing the finger at anyone in particular and telling them they are going to hell. Rather it should be admitted that we all are headed to hell because all have sinned, but God is Love and He so loved everyone in the world that He sent His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[rusra02]

What convinces you?

What the Bible actually says.

 

[Kapalika]

What the Bible actually says.

The Bible is untrue though, this is easily proven to the point where I feel overwhelmed on where to even start.